EX PARTE HARDING, 219 U. S. 363 (1911)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 219 U. S. 363

U.S. Supreme Court

Ex Parte Harding, 219 U.S. 363 (1911)


The general rule that a court, having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, is competent to decide questions arising as to its jurisdiction and that its decisions on such questions are not open to collateral attack applied in this case, and mandamus refused to compel the circuit court to remand a case in which it decided that it had jurisdiction on the issues of citizenship and separable controversy.

There is nothing peculiar in an order of the circuit court refusing to remand which differentiates it from any other order or judgment of a federal court concerning its jurisdiction.

In this case, the exceptional rule that mandamus will lie to the circuit court to correct an abuse of judicial discretion in retaining a case over which it has not jurisdiction does not apply.

Page 219 U. S. 364

It is the duty of this Court to reconcile decisions and, in order to enforce the correct doctrine, to determine which rest upon the right principle and to overrule or qualify those conflicting therewith.

Conflicting decisions regarding issuing mandamus to the circuit court to correct its decisions in regard to jurisdiction over cases removed from the state court reviewed and harmonized.

In this case, Ex Parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578, and cases following it applied as expressing the general principle involved; Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, and cases following it distinguished as applicable only to exceptional instances not involved in this case; Ex Parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449; In re Moore, 209 U. S. 490, and In re Winn, 213 U. S. 458, disapproved in part and qualified.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Page 219 U. S. 366

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line :